Union-Free One Hanson Place: the Web Site

Those objecting to the employing of non-union workers at One Hanson Place now have their own Web site, writes Crain’s NY. And, yeah, they’re calling out Magic Johnson, co-developer (the site’s called nomagichealthcare.org). “The workers who keep One Hanson Place running don’t have access to affordable health care for their families. They are also being denied the pension benefits and job security other luxury building workers receive.” 32BJ folks plan to shadow Johnson during his rounds in NYC this week.

0 Comment

From the original brownstoner post: “The NY Daily News reports that ten of their workers will have to pay $300 a month for health insurance for each family member (their own health insurance will be covered)”

THEY HAVE FREE HEALTHCARE AND HAVE ACCESS FOR THEIR FAMILIES AT A PRICE.

That seems to be, in fact, a better deal than most of us who are non-union.

Job security???? LMMFAO

Pension Benefits? There are no new job openings anywhere that come with a pension other than most of these unions which may have been necessary historically for egregious employment practices but are now a drag on many sectors of economy and need to be busted.

This post and the one on the store operator shooting the robbers reinforces my Republican tendencies.

Dave, it says right there that they don’t have what they deem affordable health care for their families; they say it’s a raw deal compared to union workers (any union workers out there, please weigh in!). Many of us, it’s true, pay a lot more than they will have to.

I think you should spend more of your energy railing against companies that don’t provide health insurance and other benefits rather than complaining about the ones that do.
But perhaps if USA had universal health care – this wouldn’t be such an issue for employers or employees.

It seems that republicans are fine with the living standards of US workers being dragged down to the standard of developing nations. used to be that we as a nation tried to encourage elevation of the standard of living in those countries.

There is no substitute for a proper living wage, one that includes affordable healthcare and the ability to raise a family. How else can a country be measured?

“it says right there that they don’t have what they deem affordable health care for their families…” it’s important to note that the website is sponsored by the union. NOT the non-unionized workers. the website actually has no comment or information about what the workers themselves think or feel.

and, from the website: “Some are even depending on public health programs for their kids.” horrors!

Although some would think that the expectatin of a pension or job security when you’re a doorman is ludicrous, the expenses associated without job security or pensions are inevitable. Guess who’s footing the bill? Every taxpayer in America.

Just because you’re not a bottom of the food chain, doesn’t mean that it’s ok not to have either.

I wonder how many of those saying “Expecting a pension plan or job security when you’re a doorman is effin’ LUDICROUS” would say the same about a CEO’s golden parachute, skyhigh stock options or perks?

I think we have our priorities totally backwards as far as job benefits are concerned. Those at the bottom should get more, not less, because they have less disposable income and the effects of job loss or other setbacks is so much worse for them.

I’d like to see a 50-to-1 pay limitation for all companies, period, not just that accept any kind of public bailout or assistance. (The ratio of CEO pay to that of the average employee has remained around 22 in Britain, 20 in Canada, and 11 in Japan, 400+ here)

CMU, I’m with you on the whole CEO [over]pay. Moreover, I think CEO compensation in general is way more ludicrous than a doorman with a pension plan and is not, I believe, free markets at work, unless nepotism and cronyism are free-market forces.

If anyone has a good plan in regards to providing health and other benefits for the less (or more) fortunate, I’m all ears. Otherwise, why are doormen and janitors more deserving of your generosity than, let’s say, waiters, gas station attendants or babysitters, not to mention illegal aliens picking your lettuce and oranges?

I’m not a proponent of the very insulting “trickle-down” economics. And, yes, the tax burden should most definitely be shifted back towards those of us who make more, as it seems to me that, your first million aside, the more you make the less you have to work. But at some point people have to face up to the choices they may have made earlier in life, like not learning a trade, not going to school, not becoming a cop, etc, though I realize the story is somewhat different for immigrants (myself being one of them).